TinglesDingle posted...
This is the correct take. Everything else is enablement, if not outright apologist nonsense for the killing of minorities by those who are given the burden and responsibility to uphold the law
This is the incorrect take. It is never reasonable for an officer of the law to take the life of an unarmed person. Full stop
@TinglesDinglefire_bolt posted...
A man breaks into your home in the middle of the night, loudly enough you hear the shattering glass downstairs. You flip on some lights to see what's going on and he fires a gun somewhere in the house. Terrified, you call the police to report a break in by an armed intruder. The cops show up and the guy runs out the back door. Cops tase him but he gets away. He goes down the wrong alley and when cornered at a dead end reaches for his waist.
This is the information you have. Armed suspect attempts to flee. Police have already tried a non-lethal takedown. He makes a hostile action. If he finishes drawing his weapon someone could be hurt or killed. Based on this information, should the police use lethal force?
Stop trying to ignore this and answer the question